When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
-
Wayspot Title: Dos Vientos Baseball Bullpen
-
Location (lat/lon): 34.175108,-118.982972
-
City: Newbury Park, CA
-
Country: USA
-
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
-
Additional Information (if any):
original report
I became aware of this Wayspot when I got another to review here for the scoreboard for this field, which I rejected as another duplicate of it, but I see is live today.
Dos Vientos Community Park Baseball Scoreboard 34.174855,-118.982253
Bullpens and scoreboards are simply elements of the field, which already has a Wayspot.
Also, the Wayspot for the field is pinned on the pitcher’s mound, interfering with players using the field as intended, and not per guidelines: Sports Fields
Dos Vientos Baseball Field 1 34.175108,-118.982972
Since I am appealing this rejected report, I might as well mention other issues.
These fields there have been pinned the same way.
Dos Vientos Baseball Field 2 34.175267,-118.983470
Dos Vientos Baseball Field 4 34.174329,-118.984427
Fields 3 and 5 have been acceptably pinned at the backstop, so it does appear the guidelines were known by someone submitting at this park.
This is interesting and the rules you’ve linked here are the complete opposite of 95% of the sporting field nominations I’m seeing in Australia lately.
Will be following and watching for the result on this.
I was chatting to Cyndie about this earlier, and I think that there’s something to be said about the use of the word ‘field’ in that guidance and how it might be misleading, geographically-speaking.
In the US, you have an American football field. It would be its own thing, used for (probably) a single sport. In the UK, the equivalent would be a football pitch. Most often, that would be a single waypoint (unless there were also art, statues, plaques etc. present.)
A sports field here would be a large, open, probably grass-covered space, that might include a football pitch, a rugby pitch, a cricket pitch and maybe some other things, like a running track, a long jump strip, a historic pavilion with changing rooms etc.
I very strongly believe that each of those would potentially be eligible in their own right.
It gets a little more contentious when you have an area with, say, multiple grass football pitches. I know one park that has 11 of these, and it didn’t feel right to try and separate them out in any way. In other places though, I have separated grass pitches from caged artificial pitches and from MUGAs, even though you can technically play football on all three. 
Thanks for the appeal, @cyndiepooh , we reviewed this location again and stand by our decision to not retire this Wayspot.
I need to stop doing wayfarer then. This completely goes against everything I understand about duplicates.
That feels like an overreaction.
Is this not just a case of these waypoints falling into the gap between ‘ought to have been marked as duplicate, but only just’ and ‘wrong enough to be removed by staff’?
Like, we know it is harder to have tangible things removed once they sneak into the game, even if 95% of the time they would have been rejected.
To be clear, I don’t mean to chastise you for overreacting – I get that these things can feel like the rug has been pulled from under you. 
I’ve tried reporting things like this as duplicates and have had the same reaction as you to Scopely Explore’s decision that scoreboards and other associated sports items are independently eligible from the sports field. To me, a baseball field is a thing. The scoreboard, home run base, players benches, subs benches do not deserve to be separate wayspots. Scopely Explore are at least consistent in deciding that they do.
Again, I think there’s a gap between ‘yup, that’s eligible’ and ‘it’s not technically eligible, but not not eligible enough to warrant removal once in-game’.
But that’s a really difficult thing to express 
Scopely Explore clearly think this about baseball fields, but I see no grey area here.
Something that is not eligible in its own right, but can be used as a proxy for something else, is a duplicate if that something else is a wayspot.
Scopely have previously implied that if the reviewers have determined that something is acceptable and that something does certainly exist and doesn’t meet any immutable problems (SFPRP, no pedestrian access, whatever), there is a higher ‘level’ of ineligibility required to result in that thing being removed by staff.
There are rejection criteria and there are removal criteria. They are not quite the same.
Strange, anything belonging to one baseball field should be treated as one, same logic as with playgrounds.
I just checked the map, I think they are gone.
Well, now that’s just a weird situation. Was the appeal of the appeal appealed? 
He corrected the pitcher’s mound pins (to the dugouts instead of the backstops which allowed the field 2 pokestop to remain in game 
) but i am still seeing the bullpen as a live wayspot at 34.175086,-118.982302
I have been known to have issues with the mapview map, but it is still there on the
Map - Pokémon GO, too.
I still see the scoreboard on the mapview map, too.
To be removed, a wayspot needs to meet any of the following (there may be other things that I have missed)
- The POI does not exist
- The POI is on school grounds or single-family private residential property, including the external boundary
- the POI is strictly and obviously not eligible (e.g., a generic direction sign)
- the POI is not safely accessible (not to everyone, but to people allowed to be there)
- the POI is obstructing operations of emergency services
- the POI is a duplicate of another wayspot
[Edit - added the last item]
I agree with all of that. And I don’t think this quite meets “strictly and obviously not eligible”.
“Probably ought to have been a duplicate” is a fair deal less extreme than that.
Definitely doesn’t meet ineligibility rules. I should add ‘duplicate’ to that list, which is built up from reading threads on this forum
